Teacher says inflammatory letter was part of lesson plan

[fgoodwin]

Teacher says inflammatory letter was part of lesson plan

 

 

 

By GREG WELTER - Staff Writer

Chico Enterprise-Record

Article Launched:09/13/2007 12:11:43 AM PDT

 

Bidwell Junior High School administrators said a letter sent home with students in an eighth-grade class Tuesday was a good idea for a history lesson, with bad execution.

 

The letter, which appeared to ask parents to renounce their U.S. citizenship, prompted phone calls to the school from several irate recipients.

 

Principal Joanne Parsley said teacher Mike Brooks never intended to have parents sign the letters, or forward them on to President Bush, to whom they are addressed.

 

"It was a well-intended lesson that didn''t shake out too well," she said, adding that Brooks would not be subject to disciplinary action.

 

Reached at home, the teacher said his U.S. History class is studying the Declaration of Independence, and he decided to write a letter putting the document into modern language. His intention, he said, was to send it home for parents to review, and possibly discuss with their children.

 

He concluded the letter with "After careful consideration of the facts of our current situation, I have decided to announce to everyone that I am no longer a citizen of the United States, but a free and independent member of the global community."

 

"The point was, I wanted to ask parents if they would sign such a letter if conditions that existed prior to the Revolution were happening now," he said. "I just wanted to start a discussion."

 

Parsley said Brooks sent the letter out with no explanation or disclaimer, and was relying on students to tell their parents it was part of a lesson plan.

 

She said several parents reacted adversely to the letter, but a few sent them back signed.

 

Chico resident Michael Hill said he was told by his daughter, Kaytlen Hill, 13, that the assignment was to have parents sign the letter and return it to class Wednesday.

 

"The lesson being taught in class was that the U.S. kidnaps innocent people and takes them to Cuba, where they are kept indefinitely and tortured," Hill said he learned through his daughter.

 

When Hill asked her if Brooks mentioned Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where the U.S. imprisons terrorist suspects, he said his daughter replied "yes."

 

He said his daughter broke into tears when she talked about Brooks mentioning illegal wiretaps and other surveillance directed against innocent people.

 

"I think I was more irritated by the classroom discussion than the letter," he said.

 

Brooks said he was trying to establish a parallel between attitudes during Revolutionary times, and those of today.

 

"When it was written, the Declaration was considered an inflammatory document," Brooks said. "There were a lot of loyalists around then."

 

The teacher said the letter led to some "wonderful discussion" on Wednesday.

 

Parsley and Chico Unified School District Assistant Superintendent Bob Feaster said they were shocked when they first saw the letter, which had gone out with no administrative approval, but wanted to give Brooks a chance to explain.

 

Parsley said he came up with good arguments for the unusual lesson plan, but would do things a little differently next time.

 

Today, Parsley said, the teacher will send another letter home with students, explaining exactly what the first letter was about, and assuring them that it was only for classroom discussion.

 

Parsley said she doesn''t believe Brooks has any political agenda to advance.

 

Hill contended the lesson put forth by the teacher is inappropriate for middle-school students.

 

His daughter reportedly told him the letter was an assignment, and she''d be in trouble if he didn''t sign it.

 

"How many did sign it, maybe without reading or understanding it?" Hill said.

 

On Wednesday, Hill said he requested his daughter be put in another history class, which was done immediately. He said Parsley responded to his phone call promptly Wednesday morning. She promised that Hill, and possibly some other upset parents, would get a personal letter of apology from the school.

[kb6jra]

Nice, I love how it''s some how ok for "teachers" to use their classroom teaching time to promote a political agenda (left or right) and label it "instruction".

 

How does the politics of Guantanamo Bay become US History? And how could it be reasonable to push any polarized political viewpoint on any child, ever?

 

This school employee should be disciplined as if he were holding a prayer vigil during class time IMHO.

 

 

 

[Gunny2862]

Communication is the key!

 

I don''t think it was an inappropriate subject for middle schoolers but:

 

First, horribly handled in terms of not communicating the intent to the parents. "Parsley said Brooks sent the letter out with no explanation or disclaimer, and was relying on students to tell their parents it was part of a lesson plan." We all know this always is the best method availible!!!

 

Second, there is no way that I am going to condone the idea that a parent should ever be asked to sign any political statement as part of their childs school project. Permission/Informed consent/Opt-out slips only please.

 

Thirdly, neither should the child. A mock election is one thing - these school papers have a nasty way of turning up later.

Okay, usually it''s been a college work but still, new technology like scanners make it possible for those with an agenda to file away things for the future that would never have been attempted before. (sorry my conspiracy theorist had to express itself)

[LongHaul]

>>How does the politics of Guantanamo Bay become US History?

[fgoodwin]

I thought this was an interesting approach, although I disagree with the teacher''s methods.

 

I''d like to ask that teacher, as an "independent member of the global community", just which government-run school did he propose to work for? Which government-run education system would allow him to send home such an interesting assignment?

 

It would certainly make for an interesting civics lesson (Jay Bennish, anyone?).

[packsaddle]

Heh, heh, if he wanted to stimulate discussion, I would say he was 100% successful!

[Lisabob]

Yeah pack, a little too successful?

 

But seriously - I teach the Declaration of Independence about this time of year to a bunch of glassy-eyed college freshmen. Just did it again today. It always astounds me that:

 

1) most of them (vast majority) have never read one of our most important founding documents, and

2) when I make them read it (yes, I''m mean) many of them can''t or won''t translate it into "current" English and have no historical knowledge of the context in which it was written, and

3) once they do read and interpret it, so many of them are surprised to discover how radical a document it really was, which suggests that not only had they never read it previously, but they''d never had cause to really think about it either, and

4) after doing all of that, we usually have some wonderful and often spirited discussions about the implications of such a statement today.

 

I''ve taught intro to American politics at the college level for long enough that I now expect most students to arrive with rudimentary (or worse) knowledge of our own founding and history. Blame whomever you want for that, but it is true. I do NOT think that one needs to be a college freshman in order to discuss the nature of government and power, its obligations to citizens/subjects, and the appropriate course of action when gov''t fails to meet those obligations. So I don''t think the lesson and topic was inappropriate. I do think this teacher - probably young, inexperienced, and eager to share his love of the topic - failed to set up his discussion in a successful manner. But geez, hardly a reason to call for his head! He admits he could have done it better and in the future he probably will. This exercise could turn out to be an extraordinarily successful one with a little bit more practice at skillfully developing discussion of controversial ideas. And who said history, especially political history, shouldn''t be controversial? It is/was, in all but the worst and most dreadful textbooks.

 

And at least he''s teaching his students history in a way that makes it relevant and hard to forget. For that, I thank him.

[kb6jra]

At the college level, and the High School level as well, I would say that (un biased) political history and Political Science is appropriate, but I don''t see where this is necessary in middle school or jr. high school. I don''t beileve those kids are ready for the burden of political rhetoric yet.

Also, if this teacher had left it at US History and it''s relevance today, that would be ok, but what I read here tells me that this guy had an agenda beyond what his job description calls for.

"The lesson being taught in class was that the U.S. kidnaps innocent people and takes them to Cuba, where they are kept indefinitely and tortured," Hill said he learned through his daughter. When Hill asked her if Brooks mentioned Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where the U.S. imprisons terrorist suspects, he said his daughter replied "yes." He said his daughter broke into tears when she talked about Brooks mentioning illegal wiretaps and other surveillance directed against innocent people."

Had this happened at my childs school I would have been calling for this guys dismissal as well, this is not an appropriate avenue to vent political bias by any means. As I said before, if this teacher had insteadpromoted school prayer and strong conservative religeous beliefs, he would have been terminated immediately before the ACLU had a chance to sue the school district. There should be no double standard. (This message has been edited by kb6jra)

[Hunt]

I think this wouldn''t have been a big deal if he had sent an explanatory note with the letter--I tend to discount the third-hand account of the supposedly inflamatory statements by the teacher. I think middle-schoolers know more about politics that one might imagine, and they do need to learn about history and government.

 

But what gets me is that a number of parents just signed the letter and sent it back! Now that''s scary.

[LongHaul]

kb6jra,

If your middle schooler came home telling you that their teacher held a discussion about how it was necessary for the US Powers to detain those suspected of terrorist activities and that the use of extreme measusres was justified because of the iminent threat to our country would you still be calling for his head?

LongHaul

[Lisabob]

Getting kids to really THINK - isn''t that what great teachers do?

 

The teacher may not have developed that discussion in a skillful manner, but I disagree that the basic topic of discussion should be off-limits in an 8th grade classroom.

 

As for "just the facts, ma''am" approaches to political history:

1) It doesn''t work that way. Our own founders disagreed on how to interpret and apply the "facts" of the day, and that debate was crucial to shaping our experience as a country (and indeed, is one reason why Jefferson wrote the Declaration to begin with - as a PR piece, to convince more people of the justification for revolution.) You cannot discuss, let alone appreciate, the debates surrounding our founding and the outcomes of those debates, without also discussing people''s differing perceptions of "the facts."

 

2) While often a hairy topic, the "facts" that we do hold suspected terrorists at Gitmo and that we do have a FISA surveillance program are not in dispute. Further, this summer the Justice Dept. publicly acknowledged in testimony before Congress that they had both illegally and routinely overstepped the boundaries of that wiretapping authority, and that they also mis-reported the use of that program to Congress for a period of years. Oops. What you make of those facts, is of course, a matter of political interpretation and emphasis. But they are actually pretty non-controversial as far as facts go.

 

If you look at the "He has..." statements in the 2nd half of the Declaration, you will find Jefferson''s justification for revolution. This laundry list of abuses perpetrated by the British government ("He" is the King) was enough, in the revolutionaries'' eyes, to justify their actions. Some of these have interesting parallels to more modern examples, yet few Americans today would advocate violent overthrow of our own gov''t. The question of why revolution is not a serious option today is an important one for understanding our political history, our political culture, and our political socialization today. It also gets at the very tricky business of balancing security vs. freedom, and these are key concepts to understanding and appreciating our government today. In fact, I''d say that these concepts are crucial to good citizenship. So I say, let''s teach them.

 

(And by the way, if you look at the 3 citizenship MBs, you''ll find a lot of opportunity to discuss viewpoints and interpretations, not "just facts," there too - are you saying an 8th grade 14 year old boy scout isn''t ready for those MBs either?)

 

 

 

 

[fgoodwin]

Hunt writes:

 

"I tend to discount the third-hand account of the supposedly inflamatory statements by the teacher."

 

And given how the popular press often mangles Scouting terms and how the program is applied, how Scouting is organized, etc., I think you''re properly cautious to take a reporter''s account with a grain of salt.

 

OTOH, when the principal and ass''t superintendent express "shock" at the letter, and assuming they know more about the curriculum & syllabus than we (or the reporter) do, I would say that certainly is reason to ask just what was that teacher thinking?

[John-in-KC]

Lisa,

 

I tend to agree with you, but when I''m counseling one of the Citizenships, I have to be careful. My job as Counselor is not to sell my political POV, it''s to inspire the Scout to think for himself.

[kb6jra]

 

If your middle schooler came home telling you that their teacher held a discussion about how it was necessary for the US Powers to detain those suspected of terrorist activities and that the use of extreme measusres was justified because of the iminent threat to our country would you still be calling for his head? LongHaul

Yes, I would have to say I would. I don''t think political bias belongs in public education in any form or from any camp honestly.

As I poorly tried to illustrate before, if this teacher had demonstrated a right leaning bias instead of a left leaning bias in his teachings, he''d be beating the streets as we type. That is the way of things unfortunately, at least as I percieve them to be.

 

[LongHaul]

kb6jra,

       So if I read you correctly current events is not a topic for class discussion. No matter what you try to discuss, from the current election campaigns to the Feds cutting the prime rate you will have opposing views and therefore bias as you put it. As has been noted these children are the ages of our younger scouts, we not only encourage them to form opinions about political topics we encourage it and Citizenship in the Nation asks that they voice their opinion in writing. I don''t think anyone disagrees that this teacher handled the assignment poorly and as Hunt pointed out the fact that some parents signed the letter without reading it is alarming. How do we educate without exposure to what is taking place around us? IMO If a parent disagrees with the political views of a teacher they should have that discussion with their child not seek to insulate their child from opposing views.

LongHaul